editor's blog
Subscribe Now

Sensor Fusion Sea Change

As I have observed and listened to the things that folks in the sensor fusion business (whether purveyors of sensors or sensor-agnostic) have been saying, there’s something of a change in the air, and it was reinforced at CES. The focus of fusion is shifting.

At the very bottom of the fusion stack are complex mathematical relationships that turn, for example, individual sensor readings into higher-level orientation information. Clearly, there’s been a period where getting that right and getting it all to be computed in real time was an effort. But that time appears to be over. Things are moving up in abstraction, but there’s a big qualitative change that’s coming with that.

The math, however, complex, more or less provides a “right answer” that’s not subject to judgment. All sensor fusion implementations would presumably agree on the answer.

The bigger effort now is not on getting the math right. Now the issue is: which sensor should I listen to? For example, if the mag sensor shows movement but the accelerometer hasn’t budged, should the mag data be ignored? Or, more perniciously, if a gyro indicates movement but the mag doesn’t, then ignore the gyro… but if the mag indicates movement and the gyro doesn’t then ignore the mag?

As will be evident in various stories I’ll elaborate on over the next little while, the challenge these days seems to be on comparing various inputs and then deciding whom to believe. And this feeds into a higher-level concept that I heard mentioned numerous times at CES: context.

Context has implications far beyond simple questions of, for instance, orientation. But judging which sensors to acknowledge and which to ignore is really a primitive context exercise.

And here’s where it’s qualitatively different from what’s come before: There is no right answer. Well, I mean, I guess there is a right answer (or, perhaps stated more accurately, any of us that have had our devices try to be too clever and guess what we’re doing, there are many wrong answers). But this is not a math problem: It’s a heuristic problem. Which means that ten different fusions algorithms may approach the problem ten different ways.

This is actually good for competition in that there can be true differentiation. It also means that several completely different approaches may all work well, which suppresses that differentiation.

The bottom line to me is that it all feels slightly more messy and complex than the complex math. Structuring an algorithm replete with heuristics can be tough – if you want to make it flexible enough to accommodate frequent changes and refinements to the algorithm. Over time, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this be a strong contributing factor in determining who wins and who loses in the long term.

Leave a Reply

featured blogs
Jul 6, 2022
With the DRAM fabrication advancing from 1x to 1y to 1z and further to 1a, 1b and 1c nodes along with the DRAM device speeds going up to 8533 for Lpddr5/8800 for DDR5, Data integrity is becoming a... ...
Jul 6, 2022
Design Automation Conference (DAC) 2022 is almost here! Explore EDA and cloud design tools, autonomous systems, AI, and more with our experts in San Francisco. The post DAC 2022: A Glimpse into the World of Design Automation from the Cloud to Cryogenic Computing appeared fir...
Jun 28, 2022
Watching this video caused me to wander off into the weeds looking at a weird and wonderful collection of wheeled implementations....

featured video

Demo: Achronix Speedster7t 2D NoC vs. Traditional FPGA Routing

Sponsored by Achronix

This demonstration compares an FPGA design utilizing Achronix Speedster7t 2D Network on Chip (NoC) for routing signals with the FPGA device, versus using traditional FPGA routing. The 2D NoC provides a 40% reduction in logic resources required with 40% less compile time needed versus using traditional FPGA routing. Speedster7t FPGAs are optimized for high-bandwidth workloads and eliminate the performance bottlenecks associated with traditional FPGAs.

Subscribe to Achronix's YouTube channel for the latest videos on how to accelerate your data using FPGAs and eFPGA IP

featured paper

Addressing high-voltage design challenges with reliable and affordable isolation tech

Sponsored by Texas Instruments

Check out TI’s new white paper for an overview of galvanic isolation techniques, as well as how to improve isolated designs in electric vehicles, grid infrastructure, factory automation and motor drives.

Click to read more

featured chalk talk

TE's Dynamic Series for Robotics

Sponsored by Mouser Electronics and TE Connectivity

If you are designing a robot, a drive system, or any electromechanical system, the dynamic series of connectors from TE Connectivity might be a great solution for your next design. In this episode of Chalk Talk, Amelia Dalton chats with Jennifer Love from TE Connectivity about the design requirements common in robotic applications and why this new flexible connector with its innovative three point contact design, audible locking system, and dedicated tooling make it a great solution for all kinds of robotic designs.

Click here for more information about TE Connectivity Dynamic D8000 Pluggable Connectors